Target populations to reduce cesarean rates after induced labor: A national population-based cohort study.
Bishop score
audit
cesarean
classification
failed induction of labor
induced labor
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
21
08
2019
revised:
11
10
2019
accepted:
15
10
2019
pubmed:
20
10
2019
medline:
21
7
2020
entrez:
20
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Great variations in cesarean rates after induction of labor exist and reasons for these disparities remain unclear. They may be explained by individual characteristics or obstetric practices. Ten-group classification systems have proved their utility to monitor cesarean rates in general population. We aimed to identify groups of women that account for most cesareans after induction of labor using the Nippita reproducible 10-group classification, specifically designed for induced population. A prospective population-based cohort study was performed in 94 French maternity units, including 3042 women undergoing induction of labor. Women were sorted according to 10 mutually exclusive groups based on parity, weeks of gestation, number of fetuses, fetal presentation and previous cesarean delivery. Relative size, cesarean delivery rate and contribution to the overall cesarean rate were described for each group. Cesarean rates were compared according to the Bishop score at the onset of labor induction. Indications for cesarean delivery were also described in the groups that contributed most to the overall cesarean rate. The MEDIP protocol was registered in ClinicalTrial (NCT02477085). The overall cesarean rate was 21.0% among this population of induced women. Nulliparous women with a term singleton cephalic fetus (groups 1, 2 and 3; at 37-38, 39-40 and ≥41 weeks of gestation, respectively) accounted for two-thirds of the overall cesarean rate because they were the largest group (relative size of 10.6, 16.6 and 18.1%, respectively) and had higher cesarean rates (27.2, 30.9 and 33.0%, respectively). When the Bishop score was <6 (n = 2270/3042), cesarean delivery rates were higher (24.1 vs 10.7% if Bishop score ≥6, P < 0.01), in particular for group 1 (29.1 vs 12.5%, P = 0.02), and group 2 (33.3 vs 19.3%, P = 0.01). In groups 1, 2 and 3, which contributed most to the overall cesarean rate, a significant part of the cesareans were performed before 6 cm of cervical dilation for dystocia only (40.0, 16.7 and 17.6%, respectively). Nulliparous women with a term singleton cephalic fetus and an unfavorable cervix represent the population to target for auditing induction practices. Specific actions could be implemented among this population to weigh the benefits and risks of induction and improve the management of labor induction.
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02477085']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
406-412Informations de copyright
© 2019 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64(12):1-64.
Euro-Peristat Project with SCPE and EUROCAT, European perinatal health report, Health and Care of Pregnant Women and Babies in Europe in 2010. http://www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010.html; 2013 [accessed 25 March 2017].
Blondel B, Coulm B, Bonnet C, Goffinet F, Le Ray C; National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal Surveys. Trends in perinatal health in metropolitan France from 1995 to 2016: results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Human Reprod. 2017;46:701-713.
Le Ray C, Blondel B, Prunet C, Khireddine I, Deneux-Tharaux C, Goffinet F. Stabilising the caesarean rate: which target population? BJOG. 2015;122:690-699.
Pyykönen A, Gissler M, Løkkegaard E, et al. Cesarean section trends in the Nordic Countries-a comparative analysis with the Robson classification. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:607-616.
Davey MA, King J. Caesarean section following induction of labour in uncomplicated first births-a population-based cross-sectional analysis of 42,950 births. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:92.
Dublin S, Lydon-Rochelle M, Kaplan RC, Watts DH, Critchlow CW. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:986-994.
Baud D, Rouiller S, Hohlfeld P, Tolsa JF, Vial Y. Adverse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in elective and medically indicated inductions of labor at term. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26:1595-1601.
Vrouenraets F, Roumen F, Dehing CJG, van den Akker ESA, Aarts MJB, Scheve EJT. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:690-697.
Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:739-753.
Banos N, Migliorelli F, Posadas E, Ferreri J, Palacio M. Definition of failed induction of labor and its predictive factors: two unsolved issues of an everyday clinical situation. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;38:161-192.
Nippita TA, Trevena JA, Patterson JA, Ford JB, Morris JM, Roberts CL. Variation in hospital rates of induction of labour: a population-based record linkage study. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008755.
Nippita TA, Trevena JA, Patterson JA, Ford JB, Morris JM, Roberts CL. Inter-hospital variations in labor induction and outcomes for nullipara: an Australian population-based linkage study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95:411-419.
Nippita TA, Khambalia AZ, Seeho SK, et al. Methods of classification for women undergoing induction of labour: a systematic review and novel classification system. BJOG. 2015;122:1284-1293.
Lydon-Rochelle MT, Cardenas V, Nelson JC, Holt VL, Gardella C, Easterling TR. Induction of labor in the absence of standard medical indications: incidence and correlates. Med Care. 2007;45:505-512.
Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King VJ. Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review. BJOG. 2009;116:626-636.
Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e14566.
Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:297-308.
Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: the 10-Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131(Suppl 1):S23-S27.
Blanc-Petitjean P, Salomé M, Dupont C, et al. Labour induction practices in France: a population-based declarative survey in 94 maternity units. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47:57-62.
Biro MA, East CE. Using the Nippita classification system for women undergoing induction of labour in a large metropolitan maternity service: bringing simplicity and certainty to an important quality improvement process. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57:228-231.
Kolkman D, Verhoeven C, Brinkhorst S, et al. The Bishop Score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30:625-630.
Gibson KS, Waters TP. Measures of success: prediction of successful labor induction. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39:475-482.
Glantz JC. Term labor induction compared with expectant management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:70-76.
Pyykonen A, Tapper AM, Gissler M, Haukka J, Petaja J, Lehtonen L. Propensity score method for analyzing the effect of labor induction in prolonged pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:445-453.
Grobman WA, Caughey AB. Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:304-310.
American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:693-711.
Grobman WA, Bailit J, Lai Y, et al. Defining failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:122 e1-122 e8.
Kawakita T, Reddy UM, Iqbal SN, et al. Duration of oxytocin and rupture of the membranes before diagnosing a failed induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:373-380.
Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, et al. Failed labor induction: toward an objective diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):267-272.